Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

94-7032 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-7032 Visitors: 45
Filed: Feb. 15, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 47 F.3d 1164 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Ernest DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James N. ROLLINS, Warden; Elmanus Herndon, Acting Commissioner, Defendants-Appellees, and Sherry Hancock; Arnold Turner; Richard A. Lanham, Commissioner; Marvin N. Robbins, Grievance Commissio
More

47 F.3d 1164

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Ernest DAVIS, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
James N. ROLLINS, Warden; Elmanus Herndon, Acting
Commissioner, Defendants--Appellees,
and Sherry Hancock; Arnold Turner; Richard A. Lanham,
Commissioner; Marvin N. Robbins, Grievance
Commissioner, Defendants.

No. 94-7032.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 19, 1995.
Decided Feb. 15, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CA-93-1429-HAR)

D.Md.

DISMISSED.

Ernest Davis, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, MD, for Appellees.

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals the district court's order adopting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying the parties' motions for summary judgment. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 (1988); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

2

We accordingly grant Appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

3

DISMISSED.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer